Has social media failed e-commerce?
Following the launch of Twitter’s “Buy” button earlier this week, Peter Cassidy, co-founder of Stackla, examines how social media drives potential consumers to retail websites.
The success and rapid adoption of social media made it inevitable that businesses would look to social to drive online sales.
New social platforms came with the promise of unprecedented reach, providing retailers with the means to drive swarms of qualified prospects to their websites.
Great perspective Pete.
The title questions an interesting one, because if presupposes that social media actually owes e-commerce something.
I’m sure some social media operators would react to the question “Why have you failed e-commerce” the same way most of us would react to a complete stranger asking us why we upset them by not coming to their party. You’d react by saying “I wasn’t aware I was your friend”.
Do most social media operators see themselves as friends of e-commerce or not? If not while would they change? – Presumably because their failure to improve sales enough would result in advertisers placing their money elsewhere. Except (long term) where else will it go given the way that Gen X and Gen Y have abandoned traditional media? We are in a situation where brands need social media more than social media needs brands (social media still needs the revenue, but they are wearing the pants).
Another challenge is how much power does social media really have on the users, the power of brand advocates is compelling, but how you generate more brand advocates, how do you get them to do something for you….without doing something for them? How willing are brands to engage people to be advocates? How willng are people to be advocates (what’s their price)? How much “advocating” can someone do before they become labelled as a shill and lose their influence? These are tough questions. I’m sure if I had the answers there’d be a bloody good job for me.
Ads in social media are interruptions. Ads in search results are relevant (well as much as they can be). Until social media knows enough about us to predict our next purchase it generally won’t convert as well as search traffic. Of course there are exceptions.
In regards to social validation at the point of sale, there is also some evidence to show that on a landing page it can actually be a distraction, so it’s not for everyone.
“Ads in social media are interruptions. Ads in search results are relevant (well as much as they can be). Until social media knows enough about us to predict our next purchase it generally won’t convert as well as search traffic. Of course there are exceptions.
In regards to social validation at the point of sale, there is also some evidence to show that on a landing page it can actually be a distraction, so it’s not for everyone.”
You’re the reason 400 million people use ad block plus.
Learn2Privacy.
Privacy is not the reason. (maybe if you’re marketing a dating site or an embarassing product)
But let’s get one thing straight, I’m talking about basic personalisation – showing an ad for a product that someone might already like or that they have shown interest in. It’s not revealing anyone’s personal details. There is no “privacy” issue. I don’t really think anyone cares if an ad is more relevant to them.
They care when the ad is unskippable, especially when it is in their news feed or blocking their content.
Meanwhile Google, of recent, appears to be serving up amazingly relevant ad’s on my android phone, suggestion places to dine nearby and even holidays based on (I am guessing) my search history and locations visited. Worrying? Not really, the ad’s I can dismiss with a flick of my finger and they are not getting in the way of the other relevant sport and news that is being served up to me. It is an interesting landscape. ‘Transactional’ marketing certainly appears to be first and foremost in start up land, followed by traditional / scatter-gun, if building a 900pound gorilla brand.